VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REP BY ITS COM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Writ petition filed by Visakhpatnam Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner against the respondents challenging the order dated 11-8-98 issued by the 1st respondent as intimated by 2nd respondent by letter dated 19-8-98. The petitioner is a Corporation established under Act 19 of 1979 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It was created under the Municipal Corporations Act and as such has to discharge various duties including the duty of disposal of sewerage. It is also responsible for regulating, treating and discharging of effluents. To achieve this purpose the petitioner Corporation established number of sewerage treatment plants. In order to keep the city clean the petitioner Corporation in 1991 planned to establish a comprehensive sewerage scheme at an estimated cost of Rs.14.21 crores. It was intended that this scheme would cater to the needs of discharging of effluents in the city of Visakhapatnam and a population of 3.20 lakhs within blocks VA, VI and VII would get benefited. The Visakhapatnam city has typical topographical features with contours varying from +60.00 metres to +2.50 metres and sloping towards the sea. The sullage and storm water from block VA, VI and VII is let out into the open drains and to septic tanks which ultimately reaches the sea without any treatment. The discharge of these effluents into the sea without treatment would endanger the existing marine organisms and health. Keeping in view these factors the Government of A.P sanctioned comprehensive sewerage scheme Phase-II by G.O. Ms.No. 559, MA dated 7-9-93. Under the scheme 25 MLD sewerage treatment plant was planned to be set up at Appugarh site near MVP colony. The location was identified based on the recommendation of the consultants. Consultations were drawn from Department of Civil Engineering, Andhra University. The scheme was being funded by the grant of HUDCO to the extent of 70% of the cost and 30% was to be met from the funds of Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. The A.P. Pollution Control Board was accordingly approached for sanction and the Board on 24-10-97 accorded consent for establishment of effluent treatment plant. With the establishment of the effluent treatment plant 25 Million litres of effluents per day would be treated and after treatment these effluents would enter the sea thereby stopping the practice of allowing the untreated sewerage water into the sea through open drains. By letter dated 15-2-97 the petitioner sought clearance for implementation of the scheme from the Director, A.P. Shore Area Development Authority, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology department in a letter to the Special Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Environment sought clearance of the project in view of Coastal Regulation Zone regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CRZ regulations"). The Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh through his letter dated 29-5-97 again informed the 1st respondent that consideration of Sewerage treatment plant at the proposed site had not been included in the approved Coastal zone Management plan. After a prolonged correspondence, the petitioner received a letter dated 10-7-97. Through this letter the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that its request for grant of relaxation of provisions of CRZ Notification had been rejected. The petitioner informed the State Government about this development. In the meantime, the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests in his letter dated 11-12-97 requested the Special Chief Secretary to consider relocating the plant outside the Coastal Regulation Zone, but the Special Chief Secretary again requested the Government of India to reconsider its earlier decision.

(2.) Before coming to the other relevant facts it would be necessary to mention that, several Writ petitions had been filed with regard to the subject matter and ultimately the matter was taken to Division Bench in W.A. No. 486/98 and the Division Bench passed the following order;

(3.) Thereafter it appears that the Central Government reconsidered the matter. The Corporation was represented by its Commissioner before the Central Government and a fresh order was passed on 11th Aug., 1998. This order is now under challenge in this Writ petition. The order is reproduced below: